Federated Farmers BoP Regional Council RPS Submission (451kB)

SUBMISSION 

TELEPHONE 0800 327 646 I WEBSITE WWW.FEDFARM.ORG.NZ 

To: The Chief Executive Officer 

Bay of Plenty Regional Council 

Submission on: Bay of Plenty Regional Council – Proposed Regional Policy Statement 

Submission by: Federated Farmers of New Zealand 

Date: 8 February 2011 

Contacts: NEIL HEATHER 

PROVINCIAL PRESIDENT ROTORUA/TAUPO 

945 Paradise Valley Road, RD 2, Rotorua, New Zealand 

P 07 357 2142 

F 07 357 2908 

E neil-heather@xtra.co.nz 

Address for service: 

JOHN SCRIMGEOUR 

PROVINCIAL PRESIDENT BAY OF PLENTY 

466 Bush Road, RD 6, Pongakawa, TE PUKE 3368 

P 07 533 3681 

E jscrim@xtra.co.nz 

GWYN MORGAN 

REGIONAL POLICY ADVISOR 

Federated Farmers of New Zealand 

PO Box 447, Hamilton, 3240 

P 07 858 0815 

F 07 838 2960 

E gmorgan@fedfarm.org.nz 

Federated Farmers wishes to be heard in support of this submission

INTRODUCTION 

Federated Farmers of New Zealand appreciates the opportunity to submit on the proposed 

Regional Policy Statement (RPS) for the Bay of Plenty region. 

Agriculture represents a significant industry within the Bay of Plenty. Because of the nature of 

farming, our members are constantly interacting with the region’s resources and are highly aware 

of the importance of managing the resources effectively, responsibly, and sustainably, in order to 

ensure the continued viability of their farming businesses, not just for themselves but for future 

generations. 

Federated Farmers is supportive of and acknowledges the submissions of other industry 

stakeholders such as DairyNZ, and Fonterra. 

Federated Farmers has developed a set of water allocation principles that should be taken into 

account when any allocation system is developed. These are included on page 14 of this 

submission under Water Quantity and page 10 for Water Quality. 

Federated Farmers looks forward to working closely with the Council on the development of this 

Regional Policy Statement in more detail, particularly regarding knowledge of farming systems 

and the ramifications of any policy changes on social and economic wellbeing. The Federation 

would be happy to meet with the Council to discuss this further. 

1. GENERAL COMMENTS 

The Regional Policy Statement needs to retain the flexibility to permit or provide for new 

technologies as they are developed. Council needs to ensure that, when discussing methods, 

tools, and mitigation options, that these are specific enough to be effective but do not relate to 

specific technologies, as this will limit the council from being able to use or provide for the use of 

other, newer, possibly more effective technology that is developed over the next ten years. For 

example agricultural technology such as effluent mitigation tools are rapidly being improved and 

new tools developed, so council would not want to limit itself to utilising current tools such as the 

specific effluent holding tanks and settling pond systems, which would discount potential new 

tools such as more efficient holding tanks and settling pond systems and nutrient stripping plants 

such as watercress. 

Relief sought: 

Methods, policy tools and mitigation options provide for and enable new technologies. 


FFNZ Submission on BOPRC Regional Policy Statement February 2011 

2

The importance of the economic use of land needs to be recognised throughout the Policy 

Statement. A significant proportion of the region is dedicated to earning a living off the land, 

which provides not only for those families, but contributes to regional and national wealth. In 

2004-05 agriculture (including downstream processing) contributed 17% of national GDP, and 

agriculture contributed 10% of regional GDP in 2003. GDP trends for the September 2008 quarter 

show the agricultural sector was the only sector to show an increase. In 2008 the Bay of Plenty 

region had 5,369 farm businesses which employed a further 4,490 agricultural employees. 


Economic use of land is enabled and agriculture is acknowledged. 


In light of the significant contribution agriculture makes to the region, and the stewardship 

inherent in operating a farming business, the RPS should have a more positive view of agriculture. 

For example, ‘intensive’ land use does not necessarily cause an adverse environmental effect; it is 

the management of the land that is the important factor. The intensive use of land, managed 

properly, can have minimal impact on the environment and may include positive impacts such as 

riparian planting. The Federation is very concerned that this lack of understanding of farming 

systems is incorporated in the RPS. It is disappointing to see they have not addressed these 

concerns despite them being brought to the council’s attention in our previous feedback and 

comments on the draft RPS. 


The RPS acknowledges agriculture and fosters a positive view of primary production. 


The Policy Statement should not be restrictive so should focus on non-regulatory methods such as 

education and partnerships rather than have a priority focus on regulation. Non-regulatory 

methods can be effective in engaging resource users to work with the council towards achieving 

mutual goals and is a more efficient way of achieving ‘buy-in’ from resource users. Resource users 

are more likely to engage and work proactively in partnership with council when they have a 

sense of ownership of and responsibility for the targets and activities being carried out, and feel 

that they have been an active participant in the decision-making process. Education is an 

important tool, particularly for issues that are not well-known or where perceptions need 

adjusting. As people gain more accurate knowledge about issues important in the region, 

misconceptions will reduce and people will be more willing to proactively engage in nonregulatory 

solutions. A reduction in misconceptions will also result in more realistic and 

achievable community expectations. The need for some regulation is accepted, but BOPRC needs 


3

to be sure that it is the most appropriate method before introducing a rule, or a requirement for 

territorial authorities to introduce a rule. 

In the context of longer term aims and goals for the region, the policies, objectives, and 

Anticipated Environmental Results should be realistic and achievable within the RPS’s ten-year 

timeframe. For example, water quality goals should take into account the impact of groundwater 

age on the ability to achieve measurable results within 10 years. 


a) Time of change is carefully considered and realistic time scales are provided throughout 

the RPS. 

b) Reformat the document so that all objectives, polices and methods relating to an issue 

are grouped together with the relevant Resource Management issue. 


4

5. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

Federated Farmers understands the purpose and is broadly supportive of the issues addressed 

and sentiment expressed in Part One of the proposed RPS. However there are some points made 

which in our view give either unnecessary emphasis or are open to interpretation and are 

therefore unhelpful. 

It is unclear what purpose the sentence Many people value the existence of natural resources and 

features in their own right, and accordingly seek their protection in paragraph 4 page 3 serves or 

even means. 

This distinction between resource use and environmental protection needs to be made clear. It is 

vital that the RPS strikes the right balance between resource use and environmental protection as 

it sets the context for both regulatory and non-regulatory management approaches by the local 

authorities across the region. The RPS has to recognise the legitimacy of productive activities and 

provide for existing ones to continue and for new ones to develop, within the context of not 

allowing unreasonable environmental effect. 

Part one also informs statement users about the structure of the proposed RPS. The way the 

proposed document is structured with the policies and methods separated out from the issues 

and objectives means that it can be confusing in how it addresses a specific resource issue. Plan 

users are best served when all relevant aspects relating to an issue are grouped together under 

the respective topic headings such as Air Quality, Coastal Environment, Land use and Water 

Quality etc. 


a) Delete last sentence of paragraph four, page 3 Many people value the existence of 

natural resources and features in their own right, and accordingly seek their protection 

b) Ensure the RPS strikes the right balance between resource use and environmental 

protection and that the ‘enabling’ intent of the Resource Management Act (RMA) is 

reflected in all sections of the RPS. 

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT IN THE BOP REGION 

Federated Farmers is broadly supportive of the approach taken with cross boundary issues under 

Section 2.5. However we do want to make it clear that the investigation of transferring and 

delegating powers, functions and duties to other authorities under paragraph 6, page 37 should 

only be undertaken with full consultation and support of the wider community. 


5

6. ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES 

The stated issues provide an overview of the regionally significant resource management issues. 

Federated Farmers understands the purpose of an RPS is, in part, to do this however we are 

concerned that the objectives, along with the policies and methods which will achieve those 

objectives, do not reflect the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. The policy 

framework focuses on environmental bottom lines in the absence of an issue that deals with the 

first part of section 5 of the RMA which is the enabling of people to provide for their wellbeing. 


a) Either introduce a new issue as follows: 

Failure to enable people to access resources at reasonable cost will result in them not 

being able to provide for their wellbeing 

b) Or ensure this statement is introduced as an objective which underpins all the existing 

resource management issues. 

7. Air Quality 

Federated Farmers understands there is a link between air quality and amenity values. However 

we are concerned that no reference is made to the fact that particular expectations about 

amenity and the level of acceptable activities is dependant on the character or zone. For example 

the operational requirement of primary production activities like silage feeding and effluent 

spreading have effects which should be both anticipated and expected in a rural area. 

We submit that the interrelationship between amenity values and zones should be made more 

explicit. This extra emphasis is required because misunderstandings about expectations and 

amenity values generate a considerable amount of complaint and friction between neighbours. 

In Federated Farmers opinion the current wording of the introduction, significant issue number 1 

and objective 1 only identifies part of a resource management issue and is therefore incomplete. 

Amenity values are intrinsically linked to the surrounding characteristics of the environment and 

as such an activity that negatively impacts on amenity in one area will not necessarily have the 

same affect in another. Rural production activities have the potential, at times, to generate 

adverse effects beyond the site which must be acknowledged as being part of the rural 

environment. Whilst we understand internalisation of adverse effects concepts we contend that 

this is not always able to be undertaken or should be at any cost. A measure of reasonableness 

must be applied and in these circumstances adverse effects should be avoided, remedied or 

mitigated. 



6

a) Amend Section 2.1 page 19 Air Quality, Introduction to include the following paragraph: 

At times primary production activities will generate effects such as noise, odour and dust - 

residents living in the rural environment should therefore reasonably expect amenity values 

to be modified by such effects (or words to this effect) 

b) Amend explanation under Significant air quality issue number 1 as follows : 

Some odours, particulates, and the emission of chemicals degrade amenity and wellbeing, 

such as when dust soils surfaces or smoke odour id objectionable. Amenity values and 

wellbeing can be adversely affected by discharges such as odour, smoke and dust which are 

inconsistent with the predominant land use and environmental quality of the character 

areas within the region (or words to this effect). 

c) Amend Objective 1 page 20 as follows: 

People and the environment are not protected from potential adversely affects 

affected by discharges such as odours, chemicals and particulates (or words to this 

effect). 

8. Coastal Environment 

Federated Farmers acknowledges and generally supports Council’s rationale to preserve the 

natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from inappropriate subdivision, 

development and use. However, the introductory part of this section fails to acknowledge the full 

range of activities undertaken within, and the values associated with, the coastal environment nor 

does it provide readers with a full understanding of what should be meant by the term ‘natural 

character and inappropriate subdivision development and use.. 

A great portion of the landward extent of the coastal environment is held in private ownership 

and contains rural activities. As such, Federated Farmers believes it is essential that rural activities 

are recognised to some degree as a part of region’s coastal environment and that all coastal 

landholders are adequately consulted when identifying those areas of high natural character. 

Input by and consultation with, farmers into this process will give Federated Farmers comfort that 

any determination will be soundly based and representative of the views held by those people 

who will be most affected by it. 

Farming historically has modified most of the Bay of Plenty coast and makes it what we see today. 

People highly value that pastoral landscape and view it as “natural”, however it is a highly man 

modified environment and requires constant intervention from man to keep it that way. In our 

opinion this does not receive sufficient recognition in the proposed RPS. The potential for working 


7

farmland to be captured by the methods designed to give effect to the stated objectives and 

policies is a major concern for our members. 

A further concern for the federation is the generalised cause and effect conclusions which are 

drawn with regards to activities that have had a detrimental impact on the health of the estuarine 

and marine environments. The statement ‘Sediment and nutrient from earthworks, stormwater 

and agriculture has affected coastal water quality and shellfish beds in the past and continues to 

do so’, on page 22 identifies only a few hand picked causes and does not accurately reflect the 

findings of the recent Tauranga Harbour Sediment Study. The media release states 28% of the 

sediment in the harbour is generated from catchments under bush, scrub and native forest. This 

significant contributing factor of sedimentation in the harbour is not mentioned anywhere in the 

chapter. It is also the federations understanding that domestic sewage has been a significant 

contributor to the nutrient loading in coastal waters, but again this information is absent in the 

section which is designed to inform resource users and decision makers. 

Federated Farmers acknowledges the concept of internalisation of adverse effects. However, we 

contend that total internationalisation of effects is not always able to be undertaken or at any 

cost. A measure of reasonableness must be applied. In these circumstances adverse effects 

should be avoided, remedied or mitigated. We are of the view that the policies and methods 

which support this objective should better reflect the enabling intent of the RMA. 

Federated Farmers acknowledges the Section 6(d) RMA access matters which are being addressed 

by Objective 5 and the corresponding polices and methods. However we submit that two 

important factors relating to access have been overlooked in the identification of the issue. First 

and foremost there is no legal requirement for public access to areas of value on privately owned 

land. Access must be negotiated with the landowner without the presumption of a right to public 

access. Secondly considering the significant costs associated with maintenance it is inappropriate 

to facilitate public access to the entire region’s coastal marine areas. Access should be 

determined based on demand in which the public have identified a desire to have access amongst 

other things. 

Relief sought 

a) Include a new paragraph, Coastal Environment, page 21 as follows: 

Vast tracts of the coastal environment are in private ownership with the predominant 

land use being primary production. Primary production is essential to the community’s 

social, economic and cultural wellbeing and as such should result in a certain amount of 

tolerance towards adverse effects. 

b) Amend paragraph 3 page 22 to refer to as follows: 

Successfully meeting the requirement to preserve the natural character of the coastal 

environment is difficult, as inappropriate development often occurs incrementally. 


8

9. Infrastructure and Energy 

Federated Farmers appreciates the importance of the region’s significant infrastructure and 

energy and is supportive of the emphasis on energy conservation and efficiency. However, we 

have a number of concerns with the primacy this chapter and subsequent objectives, policies and 

methods gives to utility network infrastructure and activities over other legitimate resource use in 

the region. This primacy is inconsistent with the RMA and inappropriate in light of the significant 

actual and potential adverse effects which can be generated. 

We are unsure what ‘subdivision, use and development’ means in the context of Significant Issue 

1 (page 28) and can only assume it relates to new activities. The issue needs to make this clearer. 

The majority of the regionally significant infrastructure is located in the rural environment. This 

environment is predominately a working productive landscape as such it is vital that landowners 

have the opportunity to be involved in decisions which can negatively impact their farming 

operations. 


a) Amend significant issue 1,page 28 as follows: 

Subdivision, use and inappropriate development can result in reverse 

sensitivity effects on existing or planned infrastructure, as well as the 

maintenance and upgrade of infrastructure necessary to support the 

sustainable growth of the region. 

b) Include two new objectives which separate out the issues currently identified in 

Objective 11 as follows: 

10. Land use and water quality 

1. The benefits of regionally significant infrastructure and renewable energy 

are recognised and given regard to. 

2. Avoidance or minimisation of adverse effects and risks from the 

development, operation, maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure 

and network utilities, on the health and safety of the community 

Federated Farmers finds the chapter on land use and water quality both incomplete and hard to 

rationalise. There are two resource management issues being addressed in the one section to the 

detriment of both. We appreciate that land use has the ability to affect the state of lakes, rivers 

and streams however this is a component of the overarching water quality resource management 


9

issue. Soil conservation is a separate resource management issue and should be treated as such 

within the RPS. Environment Waikato has soil conservation in a separate chapter of its proposed 

RPS to better address the issue. 

Water quality decisions need to be based on thorough understanding, informed by scientific data, 

and robust analysis of all options, including current and upcoming research and information. The 

council needs to ensure they are able to take into account new information and new technology 

as it is developed. Misconceptions and perceptions not based on good science should not be 

included in the Policy Statement. Further, the management of freshwater is inherently difficult 

due to the variability in water quality, interconnectedness between different parts of a 

catchment, differing geophysical, climatic and spatial features of a single waterway, subcatchment 

and catchment and an incomplete understanding of water ecosystems. It is 

appropriate for the RPS to acknowledge these difficulties and challenges. 

Federated Farmers appreciates that point source discharges into waterways have been better 

managed in recent years to ensure the impact on water quality is minimised. The primary sector, 

along with regional councils, are now grappling with the impact of non-point source (or diffuse) 

discharges and appropriate mitigation options. With increased understanding and awareness 

comes increased focus on the issue. Good work is being done by farmers and they are also 

increasingly investing in technologies, products and services that can help reduce their overall 

impact on our freshwater resources including nitrification inhibitors, effluent storage systems, 

riparian management and staff education and training. There is no mention of these positive and 

relevant initiatives in the chapter and this is disappointing. 

Council needs to retain flexibility for new land uses within the region. While it is important for our 

members to be able to continue to farm, it is also important that they have the ability to change 

their land use in response to changing demands, cost structures, and technology. This is 

particularly important in areas such as the Rotorua lakes, where restrictions on productivity and 

added costs may render farming uneconomic, and land users need to be able to make use of their 

land in more economically sustainable ways. 

Water Quality Principles: 

Principle 1 Science should inform not lead the development of policies designed to address water 

quality issues. 

Science has an important technical role in the development of policies designed to address water 

quality issues. However, given the many and often competing values that are held in regard to 

water judgements are required and trade-offs will be made. This role is best performed by those 

individuals who will be held accountable. 

Principle 2 The management of land and water cannot be separated. 


10

A holistic approach when developing water management and policy frameworks whereby the 

component parts of the system (such as land, water, air) are understood in the context of the 

relationships with each component and other systems (economic and social) rather than in 

isolation. 

Principle 3 Methods to achieve water policy outcomes are specific, measurable, achievable, 

relevant and time-bound. 

There are a range of both regulatory and non-regulatory methods that can be employed to realise 

water quality outcomes. In choosing the most appropriate method it is important to remember 

what worked in one catchment may not be appropriate in another due to a host of interrelated 

factors and values 

Principle 4 Water quality outcomes are prioritised. 

Resources and in particular time and money are limited and not all desired outcomes for water 

quality can be achieved in unison. 

Therefore, any water quality policy development or decision making process needs to ensure that 

careful and robust consideration is given to the question: what is the most appropriate scale, 

price and pace of change given scarce resources? 


a) Rename chapter 2.10 ‘Water Quality’ with the focus on this resource issue and insert a 

new chapter addressing ‘Soil Conservation’ issues separately from water quality. 

b) In identifying water quality issues, the linkage between cause and effect must be 

evidenced based and reduce incorrect assumptions. Water quality management should 

be based on a risk priority framework. 

c) Amend chapter to adopt a balanced and equitable approach with a robust cost benefit 

analysis of actions taken,, which identifies all contributors or sources of pollutants that 

deteriorate water quality, and furthers the sustainable management purpose of the 

RMA. 

d) Amend the regionally significant resource management issue for Rotorua lakes to refer 

to land use discharges not agricultural discharges specifically. 

e) Amend chapter to recognise and enable the positive industry lead initiatives which are 

developing in response to declining water quality. 

f) Amend Objective 29 or the chapter to be clear what the ‘identified values’ are and how 

they have been identified. 


11

g) Ensure water quality policies and methods: 

1. Are cost effective to implement, comply with and to monitor. 

2. Are flexible enough for landowners to adapt to their own property, empower 

and encourage self responsibility and adaptive management and innovation. 

3. Provide certainty to enable robust and durable on farm decision making. 

4. That account for and encourage the adoption of industry good practice and 

self regulation. 

h) Amend 2.10.2 paragraph 1 page 75 to point out that accelerated erosion is the issue as erosion 

is part of natural soil forming processes. 

i) Water Quality objectives, policies, and methods in the RPS are consistent with the water 

quality principles above. 

11. Matters of National Importance 

Federated Farmers acknowledges and generally supports the approach the proposed RPS is taking 

with regards to Section 6 RMA matters. However, there is limited recognition of the vital role that 

landowners play in achieving objectives relating to resources on privately owned land. 

Consultation with landowners is crucial for the protection of historic heritage, biodiversity, and 

landscapes and natural features on private land, because without landowner acknowledgement 

and “buy in” on going, cost effective positive management is unlikely to occur. 

We believe that an obligation to consult with affected landowners does not give them greater 

status than any other party to the process, but rather recognises that landowner input is integral 

to achieving successful environmental outcomes. Councils need to provide more forums for 

community groups to meet together to gain greater understanding of issues in the community. 

Resolution of potential conflicts can best be achieved by communities working informally, as well 

as through the formal submission/hearing process. In our opinion this is where policies based on 

fully integrated catchment management could be implemented effectively. 

Further the requirement to consult should not be thought of as just a statutory consultation 

required by the RMA. The early engagement of landowners in the formation of objectives, policies 

and rules that impact on the management of their land is critical to any successful outcomes of 

regional environmental objectives. Without early engagement, that may include farmer reference 

groups, one on one consultation where a plan directly relates to a property or field testing rules 

before they are applied, it is highly likely any proposed changes will result in an adversarial 

process. Enduring partnerships between Council and landowners will be much more effective in 

achieving regional objectives than endless rounds of submissions, hearings and appeals. The only 

way to achieve these partnerships is through engaging landowners early in the process about any 


12

proposed changes that will impact on them, providing them with alternatives and offering them 

the opportunity to address any resource management challenges at an on farm level. 

An example of where this approach is missing in the draft RPS can be found in paragraph 9 on 

page 52. The statement is made that many of the best examples of indigenous habitat types are 

found on privately owned land and often not formally protected. This is a good opportunity to 

remind resource users and decision makers that the lack of formal protection is not an indication 

that these areas are not being maintained or even enhanced by private landowners but rather 

that the cost of this public benefit is falling squarely on the shoulders of the private purse. Formal 

protection is not itself a measure of biological value or management. Further the emphasis of 

significant issue number 3 has the potential to offend and isolate landowners, particularly the 

ones who take their ethic of stewardship seriously. Sustainable management is fundamental to 

the philosophy of the New Zealand Farmer – their business and lifestyle requires that natural 

resources be sustained for current and future generations. 

We also acknowledge that councils are charged with the responsibility of balancing the 

safeguarding of indigenous ecosystems with the ability of people and communities to use and 

develop natural and physical resources for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing as 

prescribed under Section 5 of the RMA. However, as is often the way the devil is in the detail and 

the methods used by councils to meet these RMA obligations can have major implications for our 

members so as you would expect Federated Farmers pays particular attention to them. 

We are disappointed to note that no recognition is given to the significant contribution 

landowners have made towards the protection of the ecosystems which exist on privately owned 

land today. It is important to remember that there are many areas of indigenous ecosystems left 

and these remain as part of and along side existing land use practices. In light of this we wish to 

remind council that sustaining biodiversity/ecosystems on private land requires goodwill, cooperation 

and individual commitment of landowners and land managers – bear in mind the 

imposition of regulation will not achieve this. Council should recognise that to achieve meaningful 

protection, there must be a benefit to the landowner as well. 

Federated Farmers supports the prioritisation approach of policy MN1B. 

Relief sought 

a) Amend the chapter and council practices to address the concerns listed above: 

1. There is recognition given to the vital role that landowners play in achieving 

objectives relating to resources on privately owned land. 

2. There is an obligation to consult with affected landowners. The early engagement of 

landowners in the formation of objectives, policies and rules that impact on the 


13

management of their land is critical to any successful outcomes of regional 

environmental objectives. 

3. Council needs to provide a forum for early consultation with land owners to work 

through concepts at an early stage in the planning process. 

b) Amend Policy MN1B bullet point 4 in paragraph 2, page 108 as follows: 

The maintenance and enhancement of public access to the coastal marine area, 

lakes and rivers and their margins (refer section 6(d)) 

c) Delete Objective 18 it is over and above RMA requirements, our concerns with Policy 

EI4B are addressed separately 

12. Natural Hazards 

The Natural Hazards chapter should take into account the differences between the rural and 

urban environments. While it may be appropriate to focus on avoidance for urban areas due to 

the density of buildings and population, mitigation options, including hard protection structures, 

may be more appropriate for rural areas where there is less population and lower building 

density, and many of the buildings are uninhabited. There are also limited options for locating 

rural activities in other areas as opposed to urban development. Many rural areas, as a result, 

also rely heavily on mitigation infrastructure to remain viable, and their importance to the rural 

area should be recognised and distinguished from the use of such protection structures in urban 

areas. There is also a regional benefit in many of the flood mitigation schemes in the Bay of 

Plenty, as they protect urban areas such as Edgecumbe as well as protecting the rural areas on the 

coastal lowlands. 


a) Ensure policies and methods have the ability to take into account differences between 

urban and rural environments and address the concerns outlined above. 

13. Water Quantity 

Water is a vital component of agricultural production, which is a significant contributor to both 

the regional and national economy. Federated Farmers is therefore supportive of the 

introduction in which the economic importance of water has been recognised along with water’s 

environmental, cultural, health and recreational values. 

The chapter would be enhanced with more information about this resource management issue, 

for example how much is known about sustainability limits, where more research is needed, what 


14

water harvesting opportunities are available and what is being investigated, along with the 

principles used for allocating water resources. 

Federated Farmers is broadly supportive of Objective 31 and will address our concerns with 

policies and methods in section 4.3 below. 

Federated Farmers water allocation principles: 

Federated Farmers asks that any response to water allocation issues should first and foremost be 

built upon giving stakeholders a long term basis upon which to make decisions and recognise and 

protect existing user’s rights. Water allocation planning should also recognise that the use of 

water for irrigation (or other purposes) and/or dairy shed wash down and/or milk cooling already 

involves very considerable expense, such as the development of on-farm or off-farm 

infrastructure, energy use and labour. These are major and currently existing drivers for the 

efficient use of water. 

Federated Farmers undertook a huge exercise with our members to develop a set of principles on 

which all decisions pertaining to water should be made. This involved extensive consultation, 

including focus groups around the country and debate and sign off from our national governing 

body. It is the Federation’s view that any water allocation decisions should be made with these 

principles strongly at their heart. These principles are included as below: 

Principle 1: Water allocation decisions must be based on sound information. 

It is essential that adequate, reliable information about individual catchments is established using 

science based information to determine the availability of water as a resource before water 

management policy is developed. Informed decisions may only be made on proven and tested 

information. 

Principle 2: The system for water allocation must be relatively simple and cost-effective, for both 

the regulator and the user. 

Principle 3: Secure tenure and clear specifications for water use are fundamental. 

Water permit holders must have confidence that their investment will be protected from 

confiscation and unreasonable restrictions. Without security of tenure for water permits, longterm 

investment in improvements to existing irrigation schemes together with new investment in 

additional irrigation projects will be seriously inhibited. 

Principle 4: No one particular water allocation policy may be appropriate in all circumstances. 

Each catchment has different demands on water, different availability of water, and different 

values applied to water. It is therefore appropriate that individual catchments or sub catchments 

have water allocation policies that suit their specific characteristics. 


15

Principle 5: Water allocation regimes must not undermine local or community water allocation 

strategies. 

Community involvement in negotiated settlements, particularly in areas where water is over 

allocated, allows local communities to seek their own unique solutions. This gives communities a 

role in determining how allocation should be managed. 

Principle 6: Water allocation regimes should provide for water harvesting and storage. 

The augmentation and storage of current water supplies provide long-term opportunities to 

expand future water use options. Policies must enable and encourage this to happen in areas 

which are nearly fully allocated. Users should be able to utilise times of high flow and high 

groundwater to harvest water with least impact on the environment. 

Principle 7: Efficient use of water is best determined by water permit holders. 

Inappropriate regulations and controls on how and where water resources are used risk 

producing perverse outcomes that run counter to ensuring the efficient use of water resources. 

For example, efficiency tests should not be based on land use or whether the use is economic or 

not. Commercial drivers for efficiency should be left up to the user. 

Principle 8: The voluntary transfer or exchange of water permits must be accommodated in any 

water allocation regime. 

Flexibility is required within water allocation regimes to allow water permit holders to voluntarily 

transfer or exchange permits. Such transfers support the optimal use of water resources to meet 

the needs of both parties. 

Relief sought 

a) Include more detail as to the nature of what is known and unknown about this resource 

management issue, along with the potential threats and opportunities which are 

created. 

b) Water Quanitiy objectives, policies, and methods in the RPS are consistent with the 

water allocation principles above. 

14. POLICIES AND METHODS 

Federated Farmers is supportive of the policies and methods which have been developed to 

prepare and disseminate user guides, information and facilitate and support community based 

programmes. We commend BOPRC their efforts in this regard. 


16

We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate that Federated Farmers believes that selfregulation, 

in some situations, may be the most efficient and cost effective means of achieving the 

purposes of the RMA. 

Self-regulation implies that people are given the opportunity to regulate themselves with regard 

to avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects. Self-regulation can replace regulation by 

providing guidance as to the desired environmental outcomes to be achieved (and suggested 

methods of achieving the outcomes). The onus rests on the resource user to meet those 

outcomes. Monitoring by a regulating authority can see if those outcomes are being met. 

Further, we believe that self regulation promotes partnerships and achieves buy in with 

landowners and resource users. It also makes use of and respects the knowledge of the resource 

user in respect to a particular activity. Such methods will achieve environmentally more 

sustainable and costs effective outcomes than the use of regulation. 

Federated Farmers promotes self-regulation through a variety of methods. These include 

education, self-monitoring of consents, guidelines, support for groups such as Landcare, and 

industry initiated codes of practice such as the Fertiliser Code of Practice. This focus will enable 

the opportunity for costs to be reduced and awareness of effects that arise from activities to be 

increased. 

Federated Farmers is however, opposed to councils requiring adherence to self- regulation 

methods such as Codes of Practice as a means of a resource user achieving compliance. This is 

because it effectively makes a code of practice a de facto rule and defeats the purpose of the 

use of the method. Also codes of practice tend to be industry-initiated and often cover issues 

other than environmental effects of the activity. It is inappropriate for a council to require 

adherence to matters that are not related to the adverse effects that are being controlled. 

Some codes of practice are developed targeting a particular industry group. Guidelines within a 

code may be inappropriate or onerous for other resource users. Codes of practice are developed 

outside the council planning process (the First Schedule process of the RMA) and therefore often 

do not have the required public input. It is therefore questionable whether they should become 

part of the regulatory mechanism. 

Federated Farmers believes that Councils have a role in monitoring outcomes, but only in respect 

of the environmental effects that arise, not the adherence to any particular self-regulation 

mechanism. 

We are not opposed to wise regulation but ask that emphasis be placed on education and good 

information in order to raise performance standards. If rules are needed to modify behaviour, 

they must be clearly articulated, be understood by those to whom they apply and be fair to all. 


17

Relief Sought: 

a) Retain the use of non regulatory policies and methods and investigate ways to make 

wider use of the approach 

b) If rules are needed to modify behaviour, they must be clearly articulated, be understood 

by those to whom they apply and be fair to all. 

15. Policy AQ1A – page 89: Discouraging reverse sensitivity associated with odours, chemicals 

and particulates 

Federated Farmers understands the intention of this policy, however careful consideration must 

be given as to how district councils will give effect to it. In our opinion it inappropriately advocates 

for separation distances to be used as the sole planning response. It is important that in 

determining the most appropriate method to deal with issues arising at the interface between 

zones that this does not place undue constraints on either the existing land use or the potential 

land use activity. Any decisions as to separation distances as a method to address such issues 

must be based on a case by case assessment and not an automatic planning response. We also 

contend that for new activities the requirement for internalisation of adverse effects is greater 

than those of existing activities and they should be given the opportunity to mitigate the affects of 

their encroachment. 

Further, any control around reverse sensitivity issues should only apply to land use activities 

under separate ownership. The location for example of a dwelling near an activity which emits 

odour is a decision for the resource user and should not be unduly restricted by any plan. 

We do appreciate that the regional council is trying to minimise future reverse sensitive issues but 

there are a number of ways to achieve this goal other than blunt separation distances. Federated 

Farmers would prefer Councils to focus on sources where potential landowners can obtain 

information in respect to land. Potential residents in the rural areas must be aware that certain 

management practices are part of the normal activity in the rural area. For example Councils 

could undertake the following: 

• Include Advisory Notes in the relevant sections of the Plan 

• Attach a copy of the Advisory Note to all subdivision consents in the rural area, as a 

consent notice 

• Attach a copy of the Advisory Note to all building consents 

• Include a copy of the Advisory Note in all the Land Information Memorandums 

(LIM’s) for all such properties 


18

• Prepare information sheets detailing the type of activities that occur in rural areas 

(i.e. effluent distribution, shearing, milking etc) and seek a wide range of distribution 

mechanisms. 

• Consider using no-complaints covenants 


Replace Policy AQ1A as follows: 

Reverse sensitivity associated with odour, chemicals and particulates: 

District plans shall include policies and/or rules that manage the interface of 

different environmental zones and potential conflicts between established land uses 

and activities that may not normally be anticipated in those zones. Councils will 

focus on providing sources where potential landowners can obtain information in 

respect to land and the surrounding area. 

16. Policy AQ2A page 89: Reducing adverse effects from the discharge of odours, chemicals 

and particulates 

Amenity values are intrinsically linked to the surrounding characteristics of the environment and 

as such an activity that negatively impacts on amenity in one area will not necessary be adverse in 

another. Therefore this policy needs to recognise the different levels of amenity that can be 

expected in different zones. 


Replace Policy AQ2A as follows: 

Reducing adverse effects of the discharge of odour, chemicals and particulates in 

accordance with what is appropriate for the predominant land use and environmental 

quality of the character areas within the region (or words to this effect). 

17. Policy CE1A page 90: Identifying the landward extent of the coastal environment 

Federated Farmers is generally supportive of the rationale of this policy that aims to identify the 

landward extent of the coastal environment as this exercise will provide greater certainty for the 

region’s constituents. However we have concerns over criterion (c) as this may capture coastal 

terraces which are farmed. It needs to be recognised that these should not be subject to blanket 

restrictions as might be applicable to other parts of the coastal environment such as sand dunes. 

Federated Farmers believes that it is important for local authorities to consult with landholders, 

the community, tangata whenua and other key stakeholders during this identification process. 

Input by and consultation with, farmers, along with other key stakeholders into this process will 


19

give Federated Farmers comfort that any determination will be soundly based and representative 

of the views held by those people whom will be most affected by it. 

Federated Farmers considers that Council should refer to current case law to ensure that the 

process for determining the landward extent of the coastal environment is consistent with 

national approaches. Key terms and definitions should also be adopted across the region to avoid 

uncertainty and confusion for constituents and in particular for landholders. 


a) Amend Policy CE1A as follows; 

Identifying in consultation with landholders, the community, tangata whenua and 

other key stakeholders, the landward extent of the coastal environment 

b) Delete criterion (c) 

c) Amend the Explanation section to include; 

Where there is a change in landscape category as a result of the reclassification or 

identification of the coastal environment, affected landowners will be identified, 

contacted and informed of exactly what the proposed changes will mean to them 

prior to the notification of the plan change. That if requested these landowners are 

given an opportunity to discuss landscape boundaries on their properties. 

d) Amend Policy CE4A to include the explanation in relief (c) above. 

18. Policy CE2A page 90: Providing for appropriate development in the coastal environment 

whilst protecting areas of high natural character 

As mentioned in earlier submission point’s recognition of existing land uses within the coastal 

environment and the future viability of land uses needs to be made more explicit. We seek to 

ensure that Policy CE3A and other related policies and methods do not become the basis of 

restrictions to primary production activities in coastal environments. This will give our coastal 

members some confidence and certainty that their interests and concerns are addressed. 


a) Amend the explanation section to ensure that ‘development’ does not include activities 

undertaken as part of rural production. 

b) Amend Policy CE8B in the same manner 

19. Policy CE7B page 92: Reducing existing coastal hazard risk 


20

Federated Farmers is generally supportive of the rationale of this policy which seeks to avoid 

subdivision and development in high hazard risk areas. However we seek to ensure that Policy 

CE7B does not become the basis of restrictions to primary production activities in coastal hazard 

areas. We also need to recognise that some forms of land use will be appropriate in hazard risk 

areas and that some people may be happy to tolerate that risk. 

Further, the uncertainty which surrounds existing use rights and the absence of any mention of 

compensation options makes it difficult to understand the full ramifications of this policy. 


Amend policy CE7B to ensure that Policy CE7B does not become the basis of restrictions to 

primary production activities in coastal hazard areas. 

20. Policy CE8B page 93: Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of coastal ecosystems. 

Policy CE8B only alludes to maintaining and enhancing as safeguarding methods for coastal 

ecosystems. There needs to be more added into the policy better reflect the enabling intent of 

the RMA by being clear that resource users have the opportunity to avoid, remedy and mitigate 

adverse effects of using a resource. 


Amend Policy CE8B as follows: 

a) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of coastal and marine ecosystems by 

maintaining or and enhancing and avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse 

effects: 

b) Amend the explanation section to ensure that ‘development’ does not include 

activities undertaken as part of rural production. 

21. Policy CE10B page 94: Allocating public space within and adjacent to the coastal marine 

area 

Federated Farmers submits that landowners should not be unreasonably impacted or controlled 

in their farming activities simply because they neighbour a coastal marine area. Activities which 

trigger Policy CE10B consideration should also demonstrate a respect for the rights and wishes of 

private property owners. 


Amend Policy CE10B to include a new consideration under the ‘Activities shall also 

demonstrate:’ 

(k) Respect for the rights and wishes of private property owners 


21

22. Policy EI3B page 96: Protecting regionally significant infrastructure 

Federated Farmers can understand the need to maintain a level of control over new and 

incompatible land use establishing under, over or along side regionally significant infrastructure. 

However we are concerned that the explanation section does not make it clear those existing and 

lawfully established activities will not be captured by this policy and that these also need to be 

sufficiently recognised and protected. The majority of the regionally significant infrastructure is 

located in the rural environment. This environment is predominately a working productive 

landscape as such it is vital that landowners have the opportunity to be involved in decisions that 

can negatively impact their farming operations. 


Add a new sentence to Policy EI3B Explanation as follows: 

Existing and lawfully established activities need to be sufficiently recognised and 

protected from the effects of regionally significant infrastructure works. 

23. Policy EI4B page 97: Recognising the benefits from regionally significant infrastructure 

and renewable energy – consideration 

As addressed earlier in this submission Federated Farmers is concerned at the prioritisation of 

infrastructure and renewable energy over other legitimate and lawfully established activities and 

human health as established under the draft EPS. It is unacceptable to position Policy EI5B with its 

focus on managing the adverse effects of regional infrastructure as subordinate to Policies EI3B 

and EI4B. 


a) Amend policy EI4B to incorporate policy EI5B considerations as well 

Or 

b) Amend policy EI5B to be independent of policy EI4B 

24. Policy EI5B page 97: Avoiding, mitigating and managing the adverse effects of regionally 

significant infrastructure 

Further to the above concerns Policy EI5B must require consideration of the adverse effects 

regional significant infrastructure can have on legitimate and lawfully established activities. 


Amend policy EI5B to include a new sentence on the explanation as follows: 

Consideration must be given of the adverse effects regional significant infrastructure 

can have on legitimate and lawfully established activities 

25. Policy IR3B page 102: Adopting an integrated approach. 


22

This policy only covers the natural and physical environment. It should include an economic 

and full cost benefit analysis for any resource management issue that can demonstrate 

economics benefits for the local communities. 


Amend Policy IR3B (g) as follows: 

(g) Applies consistent and best practice standards and processes to decision making. 

This shall include full economic and cost benefit analysis of outcomes in the 

communities they are located in. 

26. Policy IR4B page 102: Using consultation in the identification and resolution of resource 

management issues. 

How do interest groups get list in (b) and land owners do not? Land owners should have the 

first priority in consultation around resource management issues as they stand to be directly 

affected by the outcomes. 


Amend Policy IR4B as follows: 

(b) Consulting all land owners and potentially affected parties and interest groups in 

the planning, implementation and review of councils’ own operational activities in 

relation to use, development and protection of natural and physical resources. 

27. Policy IR5B page 103: Assessing cumulative and precedent effects. 

This policy outlines issues to give particular regard to for cumulative and precedent effects from 

activities. However there is no contextual clarification around the key point that cumulative 

processes are accelerated processes above what is normal or existing for a predominant land use. 

For example nutrient management for agriculture is on-going and when managed correctly has no 

cumulative effect. Part of that process is applying fertiliser that is taken up by plants and then 

recycled through animals. This is a process where nutrient are added but it also stay within a 

farming nutrient cycle. The explanation of this policy fails to consider the compounding effects of 

all water entering the river system and making its way to the coastal environment. It is not is 

simple as saying “often the cumulative effects of individual actions and activities that have the 

most significant impacts” but a combination of that and sub surface water systems that are 

extremely complicated and mostly unknown. The explanation needs to be reworded to reflect this 

complicated water interface. 



23

Amend Policy IR5B explanation as follows: 

Policy IR5B recognises that it is often the cumulative effects of individual actions and 

activities that have the most significant Cumulative effects are the result of an extremely 

complicated combination of resource use, aquifer flows and recharge and weather patterns 

that have impacts on natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes and 

rivers and their margins. 

28. Policy MN1B page 108: Prioritising matters of national importance for protection 

Federated Farmers is generally supportive of any policy that seeks to identify areas of national 

importance. We consider that sites of national importance should be identified and managed 

using a focused or targeted planning response. 

However Federated Farmers submits that the draft RPS should better reflect the potential 

ramifications of this policy along with polices MN2B and MN3B and the methods which flow from 

them. There is no recognition of the potential compliance costs or loss of property rights which 

could result from implementation of these policies. The proposed RPS should advocate support of 

affected landowners and that the support should explicitly include full compensation, fencing, 

pest control, subdivision incentives and rates relief. These are the types of support which more 

fully recognises the efforts landowners make to protect and manage areas with indigenous 

ecosystems and habitats and its inclusion under the policy section will reinforce the methods and 

anticipated environmental results. 


a) Include a new policy as follows; 

Provide or facilitate as appropriate support for landowners’ efforts to protect and 

manage matters of national importance 

29. Policy MN3B page 110: Using criteria to assess values and relationships in regard to section 

6 of the RMA 

Federated Farmers is supportive of the planning approach which establishes a set of criteria to be 

used as a framework or guide for decision making. We are however concerned that social values 

have been included in Set 3 of Appendix F. This is inappropriate and inconsistent with widely 

accepted criteria for assessing sites of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of 

indigenous fauna. The criteria should be used for ecological purposes only not social ones, which 

are able to be considered using other sections within the RMA. 


Delete points 3.14- 3.17 from Set 3 in Appendix F 


24

30. Policy MN4B page 110: Encouraging ecological restoration and rehabilitation 

Whilst the intent of Policy MN4B is generally understood it has the potential to exercise control 

over and above that required in the RMA and adversely impact on common farming practices. 

Relief sought; 

Ensure policy MN4B is adopted in a purely non regulatory regime and in conjunction 

with full consultation of affected landowners. 

31. Policy MN5B page 111: Encouraging public access to and along the coast, lakes and rivers 

Federated Farmers is of the opinion that it is not appropriate in all instances to manage these 

areas in a manner that maximises public use. Managing coastal marine areas, lakes and rivers to 

achieve Objective 22 may in some circumstances unduly restrict common farming practices and 

be beyond communities’ ability to pay. The prioritisation approach is therefore supported. 


Amend Policy MN5B to include a new priority: 

(h) The rights and wishes of adjoining landowners has been considered and are 

supportive 

32. Policy MN6B page 111: Restricting public access to and along the coast, lakes and rivers 

Federated Farmers is supportive of this policy which restricts public access where necessary. We 

are concerned however that the circumstances which are deemed necessary to restrict access as 

listed under points a-e make no mention of protection of private property rights nor the 

management of private areas. Not doing so may unduly restrict common farming practices, 

namely lambing and/or calving where management decisions to restrict access maybe 

appropriate. 

There is no legal requirement for public access to these areas if they are on privately owned land. 

Access must be negotiated with the landowner without the presumption of a right to public 

access. Further, considering the significant costs associated with maintenance it is inappropriate 

to facilitate public access to the entire region’s coastal marine area, lakes and rivers and their 

margins. Access should be determined based on demand in which the public have identified a 

desire to have access. 


a) Amend Policy MN6B as follows: 


25

(d) To ensure a level of security consistent with the purpose of a resource consent, and 

for lawfully established activities, uses and management of areas within or adjacent 

to the coast, lakes and rivers; and/or 

b) Insert a new consideration into Policy MN6B as follows: 

(f) The rights and wishes of adjoining landowners 

c) Insert a new paragraph into the explanation section as follows: 

It is recognised that some parts of the region access to the coast, lakes and rivers is 

in private ownership. As such, the owners of these areas have the right to deny 

public access. The objectives and polices relating to this issue does not restrict the 

rights of land owners to deny public access to privately owned land, nor does it 

restrict or impinge on obligations under other legislation. 

33. Policy MN7B page 112: Using criteria to assess appropriateness of development 

As currently worded Policy MN7B is inconsistent with the sustainable management intent of the 

RMA. There is an exclusionary aspect to the social and cultural values and no economic balance at 

all. 


Amend Policy MN7B to better reflect the sustainable management and enabling intent of 

the RMA 

34. Policy NH2B page 113: Avoiding new development that would result in unacceptable 

natural hazard risk 

Federated Farmers is supportive of the risk assessment rationale of this provision. However we 

seek to ensure that Policy MN8B and IR8C do not become the basis of restrictions to primary 

production activities in potential hazard areas. 


Amend Policy NH2B and NH3B to ensure that ‘development’ does not include activities 

undertaken as part of rural production. 

35. Policy WL1B page 122: Facilitating land-use change 

Federated Farmers submits that Regional and District Plans should enable land-use change as 

opposed to facilitate it. Facilitate seems to suggest councils adopt a proactive approach rather 


26

than the more appropriate one which sees them involved if and when the resource user chooses 

to change their land use. 

The explanation states that this policy will be used to significantly reduce discharges of 

contaminant, including nitrogen and phosphorus from land uses, subdivision and development 

activities. Further that it will allow close scrutiny of a proposal and conditions could be set to 

keep any contaminant discharge within acceptable limits or for consents to be refused. There is 

too much uncertainty at moment with regards to the desired targets to know whether this is 

acceptable control or not. 

Related comments to this policy are made below in reference to policies WL4B, WL5B, and WL6B. 


a) Amend Policy WL1B as follows: 

Facilitating Enabling land-use change 

b) Delete Policy WL1B 

36. Policy WL2B page 122: Defining catchments at risk 

Part (b) of this policy is extremely far reaching and open to a wide interpretation. Stating ‘having 

regard to whether they have they have significant cultural and/or ecological values’ need to 

include the cultural values of communities including farming cultural values. These values need to 

be defined in consultation with local communities. 

Land-use change should only be assessed on actual effects not potential effects or simply land-use 

change itself. The assimilative capacity of a water body to accommodate nutrients without 

affecting those values includes the cultural expectations of the community in the catchment. If 

mitigation options are an acceptable outcome for affect parties then there is no risk. For example 

a new technology such as a feed pad can be introduced into a dairy farm The stocking rate goes 

up and there is no extra nutrient loading onto land because it is caught and irrigated 

appropriately. 


a) Amend Policy WL1B (b) as follows: 

The catchments of other water bodies to be defined in the Regional Water and Land Plan, 

having regard to whether they have they have significant cultural and/or ecological values 

that are defined through consultation with local communities that my be adversely affected 

by land use or land-use change or have limited assimilative capacity to accommodate 

nutrients without affecting those values. 


27

37. Policy WL3B page 122: Establishing contaminant discharge limits for priority catchments 

Federated Farmers is supportive of the prioritisation approach adopted however we are 

concerned at the limited focus Policy WL3B has. The assumption is that the ranges of water 

quality values are all compromised by nitrogen and phosphorus. It is a concern that the 

conclusions are not more specific because the corresponding method designed to address the 

water quality issues is then unable to be appropriately targeted. Federated Farmers is unable to 

make an informed decision as to the merits or other wise of this statement based on the 

information provided in this document and no clear reference is made to technical reports which 

support these claims. 

Further submissions are made about this issue with regards to policies WL4B, WL5B, and WL6B 

below. 

We are also concerned that this policy and others designed to address water quality issues are 

activity based rather then in keeping with the effects based intent of the RMA. 


a) Insert a footnote with a link to the technical reports or studies to support the 

statements made in relation to water quality. 

38. Policies WL4B, WL5B and WL6B page 123: Nutrient discharge levels 

Federated Farmers understands that dairy farmers in the Lake Rotorua catchment are willing to 

contribute to a catchment scale nutrient management plan that includes nutrient benchmarking 

and ultimately reducing N and P losses from their farms so long as: 

1. The social and economic implications are taken into account. 

2. They are convinced that: the catchment scale plan is scientifically robust; their contribution 

is making a measurable difference to the things the public values; and the catchment scale 

plan has considered all technically feasible nutrient management options. 

3. The timeframes for progress are rational and bear in mind that the current problem has 

been caused by decades of nutrient input from a variety of sources, and that the modelling 

clearly shows that decades will be required to reduce external nutrient inputs into the lakes. 

Addressing internal loads may provide better short term outcomes. 

4. Farmers get certainty so they are confident to invest in management change; 20-30 years is 

required to support infrastructure investment 

5. Costs to all parties are calculated and reported, with a philosophy that costs are reasonably 

and fairly shared. 


28

6. Communications are accurate and agreed. 

7. BOPRC acknowledges that constraints on farming operations will cost farmers loss of capital 

and profitability. 1 

8. The land owner receives ‘nitrogen credits’ for Gorse removal. 


The issues above could be addressed through: 

1. The draft Action Plan (2009) taking account of the most recent research and the associated 

implications this has for management intervention priorities. 

2. The Interventions Framework that BOPRC is currently developing being finalised as a robust 

and comprehensive framework with input from the dairy industry. 

3. BOPRC revising the use of the TLI in the new RPS and establishing targets and indicators for 

water quality that are based on the constituent variables of the TLI instead. 

4. Allowing the mechanisms within the current Regional Land and Water Management Plan an 

opportunity to work. This would include the dairy industry and BOPRC agreeing to realistic 

target reductions for nutrient loss reductions to 2035 for the dairy sector through a 

Voluntary Stewardship Agreement. A catchment scale target could then be developed with 

other sectors in the catchment. 

5. Annual public reporting by the Lakes Programme. A well developed Interventions 

Framework with associated cost effectiveness assessment will assist with robust processes 

and reporting. 

6. BOPRC and dairy industry partnership’s communication teams developing agreed core 

messages that both parties use in communications during 2009/10 and into the future on 

the Lake Rotorua issue and the science behind it. 2 

39. Policy WL4B page 123: Requiring consent for increased discharges. 

Policy WL4B assumes that increased discharge of contaminants will be the result of a land use 

change and that this is the basis for requiring resource consent. There is no mention of mitigation 

options and this policy needs to be effects based and not simply from a change in land use. 


Amend Policy WLB4 page 123 Amend as follows: 

1 Diary Industry Position Paper on Lake Rotorua, DairyNZ, Federated Farmers , Fonterra and Farmers in the 

Lake Rotorua Catchment (2009, pg7) 

2 Diary Industry Position Paper on Lake Rotorua, DairyNZ, Federated Farmers , Fonterra and Farmers in the 

Lake Rotorua Catchment (2009, pg8) 


29

Require that, in catchments at risk, where a change in land use is likely to results in the 

discharge of increased amounts of nominated contaminants and all mitigation options have 

been explored, be allowed only if a resource consent is obtained. 

40. Policy WL5B page 123: Allocating nutrient discharge levels. 

In terms of the ability of water bodies to assimilate nutrient discharges Federated Farmers cannot 

see what relevance the ‘future vision for landscape’ has to water quality or how this can be 

considered within the nutrient allocation framework. At the same time efforts to reduce nutrient 

discharges into water bodies should be recognised in catchments at risk such as the Rotorua Te 

Arawa lakes. Therefore where gorse is removed the land owners should receive a nitrogen credit. 


Amend Policy WL5B page 123. Principle d future vision for landscape has no relevance to the 

allocation of nutrient discharge levels Delete: 

(d) Future vision for landscape. 

Amend Policy WL5B page 123 Add: 

(j) Land owners will receive ‘nitrogen credits’ for Gorse removal. 

41. Policy WL6B page 124: Managing the reduction of nutrient discharges 

Policy WL6B is in contradiction with policy WL3B that clearly states the upper limit of 435 tonnes 

per annum for the Rotorua lakes. Federated Farmers cannot see where the 2019 year came from 

or why this policy is required at all. With rule 11 in the regional plan and community action plans 

already in place this policy is redundant. This policy would give the Bay of Plenty Regional Council 

the mandate to enforce a reduction in nitrogen inputs into lake Rotorua. This could over rule the 

grand parenting bench marks established for maintaining a nutrient maximum discharge for the 

catchment and enforce a reduction on farmers if the level of 435 tonnes of nitrogen per annum is 

not met by 2019. 


Delete Policy WL6B page 124. 

42. Policy WL7B page 124: Minimising the effects of earthworks and vegetation disturbance 


30

Federated Farmers is concerned that there needs to be acknowledgement that erosion occurs 

irrespective of land use and is a constant part of land form modification and weathering 

processes. Therefore it should be clarified that only accelerated erosion is of concern and 

therefore policy WL7B should reflect this. 


Amend Policy WL7B page 124 as follows: 

(a) Accelerated erosion and soil loss; and 

43. Policy WQ2A page 126: Setting and applying minimum flows and allocation limits for water 

Whilst Federated Farmers broadly accepts the approach which sets and applies minimum flows, 

we are concerned that the current values exclude the economic value of waterbodies. This is 

inappropriate and inconsistent with the sustainable management purpose of the RMA and 

Appendix 3 of the proposed National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water 

Levels March 2008 which states 

The setting of environmental flows or water levels requires a judgment to be made by a regional 

council on the management interventions required to provide for the values attributed to a water 

body, taking into account both natural and development values. This judgement is made in 

accordance with the priorities set in Part II of the RMA, national policy statements, regional policy 

statements and regional plans, and is informed by technical and subjective assessment of the likely 

consequences of changes to water flows or water levels to the values attributed to the water body 


a) Amend Policy WQ2A as follows: 

To ensure minimum flows are consistent with the sustainable management purpose 

of the RMA and Appendix 3 of the proposed National Environmental Standard on 

Ecological Flows and Water Levels March 2008 (above). 

44. Policy WQ1A page 126: Promoting efficient use and water harvesting 

Federated Farmers understands that demand on limited water resources is increasing and we 

support the encouragement of storage options under Policy WQ1A. Water storage allows erratic 

rainfall events to become a reliable water resource. Water can be stored in either in-stream or 

out-of-stream purpose-created dams, or in artificially raised lakes. Natural watercourses are 

often used to transport water from storage to irrigation cannels. This provides an opportunity for 

natural flows to be augmented and enhanced. 


31

We believe that water storage and augmentation provides opportunities for integrated waterland 

management options to be designed so as to provide ‘win –win’ outcomes for the farm, the 

river and the regional community. Further, we believe that stored water is a property right, which 

can be traded, gifted and used to the benefit of the owner(s). 

Federated Farmers supports both these policies in the promotion of efficient water use and water 

harvesting 

45. Policy WQ4B page 127: Establishing common expiry dates for the taking of water 

Whilst Federated Farmers understands the intent of this policy we are very conscious that onfarm 

investment in the planning, construction and maintenance of water-related infrastructure 

such as irrigation is high. Farmers are also increasingly investing in technologies, products and 

services that can help reduce their overall impact on our freshwater resources including 

nitrification inhibitors, effluent storage systems, riparian management and staff education and 

training. 

BOPRC must be very careful not to stifle this growth, development and investment due to the 

uncertainty this policy may introduce. 


a) Amend the policy to state that the regional plan may shall include policies etc 

b) Ensure the policy and corresponding methods provide the certainty resource users need 

to continue making water use related investments. 

46. Policy WQ6B page 127: Ensuring water availability 

Federated Farmers is concerned that this responsibility is to be borne by resource users given the 

lack of information and knowledge held by BOPRC with regards to water catchment and allocation 

issues. The potential costs required to discharge this responsibility would make it prohibitive and 

unduly onerous for resource users particularly in the absence of an accessible and robust 

database of the water availability in the region. 


a) Delete Policy WQ6B until such time as BOP is able to give resource users a better 

understanding of water availability and/ore pressure points across the region. 

47. Policy WQ8B page 128: Managing water takes to ensure efficient use 

Federated Farmers understands the intent of this policy however we do have some concerns 

relating to practicality and cost with a number of the considerations. 


32

The requirement for the consent holder to measure and report the actual amount of water taken 

should be linked to the size of the take ie larger takes need more frequent and more accurate 

reporting than smaller ones. The costs and maintenance of metering has the potential to 

inappropriately prohibit activities with minimal effect. 

It will be difficult to determine the impact of (e) in advance of the Regional Council projects 

outlined in Methods 33 and 34 and in the absence of council knowing the allocation limits of the 

water catchments across the region. 

Federated Farmers finds the common expiry date of 10 years unacceptable. Other regional 

councils are looking at 15-20 year time frames and this is more appropriate and reflective of the 

full ramifications this approach can have ie impact on cost of investment in infrastructure, 

certainty, costs of applications etc. 


Amend policy WQ8B to: 

a) Have a 20 year expiry date for water takes. 

b) The requirement for the consent holder to measure and report the actual amount of 

water taken should be linked to the size of the take. 

c) Outline council allocation limits. 

Methods to Implement Policies: 

48. Method 8 page 132: Liaise on cross boundary issues specific to Waikato Regional 

Council 

Method 8a should only be used where there is an adverse effect or issue that is as a result of land 

use and not day to day land use itself. This method should be effects based and not on a particular 

land use. 


Amend Method 8 (a) as follows: 

Bay of Plenty Regional Council will liaise with Waikato regional Council to ensure that as far as 

possible : 


33

(a) Any regional plans for that part of the Rotorua lake catchment within the Waikato region 

achieve the objectives set for the lake, particularly in relation to managing the effects of land 

use and nutrient management. 

49. Method 16 page 133: Requirements of structure plans 

The establishment of new view shafts can have a negative impact on land values as it places 

restrictions on all future development and therefore land use. Different regional councils should 

be autonomous with their own plans and water bodies. Federated Farmers objects to the 

inclusion of view shafts. 


Amend policy 16 (b) as follows: Identify urban intensification areas 

Delete Method 16 (i). Identify significant view shafts to be maintained and enhanced through the 

avoidance of inappropriate development. 

50. Method 36 page 137: Provide protocols for managing earthworks 

Whilst Federated Farmers is broadly supportive of the approach to prepare protocols to guide the 

management of earthwork, we are concerned that these protocols are non statutory documents 

and as such will not be open for consultation and submission from stakeholders. 


Amend Method 36 as follows; 

Prepare protocols in consultation with stakeholder groups to guide changes to 

district and regional plans to avoid gaps and unnecessary overlaps in the regulation 

of earthworks and land disturbance, including vegetation disturbance. 

51. Method 49 page 138: Identify and advocate for ecological corridors and buffer zones 

Federated Farmers is concerned with the approach outlined by this method. We do not accept 

the use of buffer zones as an automatic planning response and in our opinion the desire to reduce 

edge effects and maintain linkages with other areas is already factored into the ecological context 

Appendix F criteria. 

Further, it is important that in determining the most appropriate method to deal with issues 

arising at the interface between zones that this does not place undue constraints on either the 

existing land use or the potential land use activity. Any decisions as to separation distance as a 


34

method to address such issues must be based on a case by case assessment and not an automatic 

planning response. 

Imposition of this method has the potential to create perverse incentives and antagonise the very 

landowners, whose cooperation is essential to the achieving desired environmental outcomes. 


a) Delete method 49 

52. Method 50 page 138: Identify, map and protect View Shafts 

Federated Farmers considers this method to be potentially unduly onerous on landowners for a 

number of reasons. The likelihood is that a number of viewshafts will be established over working 

rural environments and in our opinion it is inappropriate to protect these. 

The RMA does not require identification or maintenance of these ‘viewshaft’ areas which do not 

meet Section 6(b) status. The draft RPS advocates for control of these spaces and this is 

concerning given that normal farm buildings and practises such as earthworks, vegetation 

planting or clearance could be captured. These are entirely appropriate activities in a dynamic 

working rural landscape which does change over time. 

Subdivision rules and rural zones are in place to help ensure that the rural landscape remain rural 

in character. It is unnecessary to place additional restrictions on rural sites for amenity purposes. 


a) Delete Method 50 

OTHER MATTERS 

Allocation of responsibilities 

Federated Farmers supports the allocation of responsibilities as outlined. This should be retained 

as read. 

Consequential amendments 

Make any consequential amendments as to detail or substance throughout the draft Regional 

Policy Statement to give effect to this submission. 

SUBMISSION ENDS 


35

Federated Farmers BoP Regional Council RPS Submission (451kB)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?